Column: Also invite other juries

One of the most well-known subjects of discussion in
dressage is the jury. Without juries, there wouldn’t be dressage. However, the
dressage sport stays a world where we don’t know everything about. One of the
facts is that some juries are invited to judge almost every week, whereas
others almost never get an invitation. What causes this difference? It would be
a good thing to also invite juries that do not judge very often in Europe. Even
though opinions differ, with this column I would like to bring the subject up
once more.

During the international competition in Guadalajara I spoke with several
juries. They do have a high FEI raking and are praised because of their skill
level. However, they almost never judge in Europe. For example: it is an
exception for an American jury to be invited to judge a competition in Europe.
The only juries that do receive invitations are some 5* juries and every now
and then a 4* jury. This is also the case for juries that have their origin in
Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Brazil or Chile. I even looked towards the Asian,
African and Pacific countries, who do have several well-known international juries.
Sometimes, in Portuguese or Spanish speaking countries, a jury from a Central
or South American country is invited. In general, the juries that are invited
to judge the European competitions mostly originate from the neighbouring
countries. Just take the Netherlands as an example. We do see a lot of the same
faces at every competition. These juries are praised for their experience and
skills, that is for sure, but we keep seeing them. This gives them the
opportunity to get to know the riders and to know what their maximum is. The
other way around is that you, as rider, do know how a specific jury will judge
your performance. Does this benefit the sports?

In my opinion, the influence of juries that originate
from countries outside Europe or have their origin in less developed countries,
will cause less bias between rider and jury. When we keep inviting the same
juries over and over, the competition gets a lot less interesting. A little
while ago, I heard a jury tell a rider the following: ‘In my opinion you rode
your horse a lot better previous time.’ This comment causes question marks. Why
did the previous competition matter? The jury is at the competition to judge
what he or she sees at that moment and what needs improvement for the future.
This is one of the reasons there is a bias between rider and jury.

For juries that originate outside of Europe it would
be good to enlarge their knowledge and be able to judge other combinations.
That makes it possible for them to develop themselves and create opportunities
for more juries to judge. A jury with less experience does not necessarily mean
that his or her judgement is of a lesser quality than the judgement of a jury
that can be found judging on a weekly base. By providing them with more
opportunities to judge in other countries, the juries are able to develop
themselves even more. Juries do have to be present at Refresher Seminars
organized by the FEI to keep their knowledge up-to-date.

Why aren’t we inviting these juries and what causes
that one jury is invited to be at a certain competition and the other judge is not?
One of the reasons is, of course, the financial reason. A plane ticket from Melbourne
to Amsterdam is more expensive than a ticket from Madrid to Budapest. When
competitions are organized, this is one of the first things they try to save
money on. However, I still think that it can be profitable to invite a jury you
would not invite in the first place. Another reason why one jury is favoured
compared to the other is favouritism. I think that this does not need more
explanation.

“For juries that originate outside of Europe it would be good to enlarge their knowledge and be able to judge other combinations. That makes it possible for them to develop themselves and create opportunities for more juries to judge.”

A 2* jury (a jury from less developed country that is
allowed to judge until the international Small Tour level) almost never gets an
invite. Simply because they are not allowed (yet) to judge Grand Prix, even
though they do function very good in the Small Tour and youth competitions. The
same thing applies for 3* juries. The 3* juries are starting to learn how to
judge the Grand Prix and they are in the process of developing themselves to
get the 4* and finally the 5* status. They also deserve more invites to gain
experience. These ‘unexperienced’ juries can learn so much from their more experienced
colleagues.

In the countries outside of Europe, such as the United
States of America, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand and Australia,
they are almost forced to invite European juries, because that is where most
juries originate from. They are obligated to pay those expensive plane tickets,
so why do European organisations not pay for them?

That is why I keep questioning myself why things go
the way they go. Let’s invite juries from other countries. This causes a better
image for both the rider and the jury and will benefit the sport. Besides this
reasoning, inviting other juries also increases globalization, a thing that is
very important to me. I would like to suggest that the FEI assigns one or two
juries to the competition that cannot be influenced by the organisation. These
juries can be randomly chosen from all available juries all over the world.
This prevents that the same juries will be at the same competitions, where I
come back to the favouritism. This also increases the opportunities for juries
that are still developing themselves.

Overall, I conclude that it would be of great benefit to the dressage sport to increase the variation in juries invited at international competitions. I think I made my point more than clear. Even though it will be an investment for the organisation, I am quite certain it will lead to a positive result for the riders, the juries and the organisation. Let’s put the favouritism aside and give everyone a fair shot.